News Center
The U.S. office of Yunnan Zhongji Law Firm Opens a New Chapter in Cross-Border Legal Services.
As the second decade of the 21st century begins—and coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the establishment of Yunnan Zhongji Law Firm (formerly Yunnan Liu Hule Law Firm)—our firm’s U.S. office has officially been established in the state of California, USA. Since its founding in 2000, Yunnan Zhongji Law Firm has embraced “accumulating strength steadily for a powerful burst” as its corporate ethos and has consistently upheld “going global” as its guiding principle. After careful deliberation and thorough preparation, Yunnan Zhongji Law Firm officially established the Zhongji Law Firm U.S. Office on February 1, 2020, in Irvine, a city located in the southern part of Los Angeles, USA.
As the second decade of the 21st century begins—and coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the founding of Yunnan Zhongji Law Firm (formerly Yunnan Liu Hule Law Firm)—our U.S. office has officially been established in California, USA.
Since its establishment in 2000, Yunnan Zhongji Law Firm has embraced “accumulating strength steadily for a powerful burst” as its corporate spirit and has consistently upheld “going global” as its guiding principle.
After rigorous deliberation and thorough preparation, Yunnan Zhongji Law Firm officially established the Zhongji Law Office U.S. Office in Irvine, located in southern Los Angeles, USA, on February 1, 2020.
On July 18, 2025, a delegation led by Li Yousheng, Member of the Party Committee and Director of the Political Department of the Chongqing Municipal Justice Bureau, and Secretary of the Party Committee of the Chongqing Lawyers’ Industry, together with He Hongtao, President of the Chongqing Lawyers Association; Xu Deng, Deputy Director of the Lawyers’ Work Division of the Chongqing Municipal Justice Bureau and Secretary-General of the Municipal Lawyers Association; Chen Youkun, Executive Vice President of the Chongqing Lawyers Association; Jiang Zhiguang, Deputy Secretary-General of the Chongqing Lawyers Association; Luo Shu, Director of the Chongqing Lawyers Association’s Specialized Committee on Cross-border Dispute Resolution; Jiang Qin, Director of Chongqing Zhihe Zhi Law Firm; Du Xiaohua, Director of Chongqing Huadong Law Firm; and Luo Canlin, Partner at Chongqing Qihui Law Firm, paid a visit to our firm, accompanied by Wan Li, Vice President of the All China Lawyers Association, President of the Yunnan Lawyers Association, and Director of our firm, as well as Zhang Hui, Vice President of the Yunnan Lawyers Association. The delegation came to our firm to engage in business exchange activities.
On July 11, 2025, Attorney Chen Jinling, Director of the Environmental and Energy Practice Committee of our firm, was invited to deliver a special lecture for the rotating training program for Party members in Kunyuan Road Community, Zhaozong Community, and Mianshan Community. Over a hundred Party members and community staff who attended the event joined Attorney Chen Jinling in interpreting the "Regulations on Disciplinary Actions of the Communist Party of China," thereby contributing to the strengthening of Party conduct within the communities.
Recently, the judicial opinion in Civil Judgment No. (2018) Supreme People's Court Min Shen No. 5332—that “even if the construction contract is invalid, since the parties have explicitly agreed on a reduction ratio for the settlement of project payments, which reflects their true intentions, and the project has passed acceptance inspection, the agreement on the reduction ratio is binding on both parties”—has been widely circulated within the circle of construction lawyers, bringing joy to Party A (the general contractor or sub-contractor, or the party engaging in illegal subcontracting) and causing distress to Party B (the actual constructor). On this issue, the author holds a different view, arguing that the aforementioned opinion and judicial rule represent only a partial glimpse, failing to capture the whole picture. They do not reflect “the evolution and refinement of judicial practice regarding the aforementioned issue,” nor do they reveal “the growing convergence of judicial rules toward the ‘actual participation in management costs’ theory, which is more equitable and just.”